DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Examiner Notes
Claims 1-13 are currently pending of which claims 9-13 are withdrawn. Claim 1 is currently amended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-4, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartow et al. (US 2019/0022928).
Regarding claims 1-4, Bartow discloses a three-dimensional shaped object formed from fluoropolymer (0012) The laminate formed by sequential deposition of multiple layers of material from a 3D model (0031) and thus would be produced by a shaping device and a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure. Alternatively, the limitation of “the three-dimensional shaped object is a laminate of layers according to the slice data of the three-dimensional structure” does not appear to impart any structure which would not be met by any three-dimensional object.
Bartow discloses the object having an XY direction parallel to the shaped plane with a z- direction perpendicular to the shaped plane (0189). Bartow discloses the tensile strength at break of at least 5 MPa and elongation at break in the z-direction (perpendicular to the x and y direction) of at least 100% (0186, 0189), overlapping the claimed 9 MPa or more and 20% or more, respectively.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have selected the overlapping portion of the ranges disclosed by the reference because overlapping ranges have been held to be a prima facie case of obviousness, In re Wertheim, 191 USPQ 90, In re Woodruff, 16 USPQ2d 1934, and In re Peterson, 65 USPQ2d 1379. MPEP 2144.05.
Bartow teaches the fluropolymers are meltable (0092).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Bartow teaches a tensile strength of from 12 to 24 MPa (0186), overlapping the claimed 10 MPa or more in claim 2 and 19 MPa or more in claim 3.
Regarding claim 4, Bartow teaches an elongation at break of 150 to 400% (0186), overlapping the claimed 200% or more.
Regarding claim 7, Bartow teaches a melt flow of 50 g/10 min or less (0011), overlapping the claimed MFR of 0.1 g/10 min or more.
Regarding claim 8, Bartow teaches fluoropolymers including copolymers of tetrafluoroethylene and perfluorinated comonomers including hexafluoropropylene and perfluoroalkoxyethylene (0088).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartow as applied to claim 1 above with evidentiary reference Xu (US 2015/0290707).
Regarding claim 5, Bartow discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. While Bartow teaches the surface is smooth (0173), Bartow does not expressly teach a surface roughness value (Ra) of 30 µm or less.
However, as evidenced by Xu, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious that Bartow teaches an overlapping range of surface roughness as additively manufactures parts typically have a surface roughness between 4.4 and 15.2 µm (0004).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bartow as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Varis et al. (US 2013/0207291).
Regarding claim 6, Bartow discloses the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Bartow does not teach the three-dimensional shaped object subjected to punching.
Varis, in the analogous field of composite products (0005) teaches processing a product surface with punching (0036).
A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have found it obvious to machine the surface of the object of Bartow with punching as taught by Varis, to shape the surface to a desired form (0038).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 04/17/2024 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s argument that Yagisawa does not teach or suggest the claimed three-dimensional shaped object having the claimed tensile elongation at break in the z-direction (direction perpendicular to the shaped plane) has been fully considered and is persuasive. Applicant has further shown in the Affidavit on 09/15/2025 that this property would not be expected from the prior art examples. Thus the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that Tsuji does not teach a three-dimensional shaped object that is a laminate of multiple layers has been fully considered and is persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments over Bartow have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Bartow uses PTFE which is not a meltable fluororesin.
Bartow teaches the fluoropolymers of the invention having a melt flow rate (0091) and melting points (0092) thus disclosing meltable fluororesins.
Applicant argues that it would be difficult to achieve a tensile stress at break of 9 MPa or more from the material of Bartow.
Bartow expressly teaches values above 9 MPa and thus the claimed range is achievable by the prior art (0186).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yaguchi et al. (US 2019/0284351) teaching a 3D printed object.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALICIA WEYDEMEYER whose telephone number is (571)270-1727. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Frank Vineis can be reached at 571-270-1547. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALICIA J WEYDEMEYER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1781
Prosecution Insights